(A famous cryptanalytic puzzle is to substitute a digit from 0 to 9 for letters, so that SEND + MORE = MONEY is a correct addition. See the end of this column for the solution; for now, read on.)At last week's University faculty meeting, forcefully prodded by an insistent administration, the faculty overwhelmingly voted to raise the minimum residency requirement for undergraduates from four to seven tuition-paying semesters. A further one-semester allowance was made for students who elect overseas programs. Previously, a mix of Advanced Placement credits, courses taken elsewhere and semesters overloaded with extra courses allowed Brandeis students to speed up and graduate faster.

During discussion of this motion at the faculty meeting, Dean of Arts and Sciences Jessie Ann Owens laid a particular, basso ostinato emphasis (indeed appropriate for a music professor) on "the integrity of the Brandeis experience," which we were urged to maintain for the sake of the undergraduates.

No one really debates that -- certainly not me. The only question is, how many semesters? What was left largely unsaid, but hung in the air like a fog, is the real financial difficulty felt at Brandeis and other universities -- it's the economy, stupid. To show concern at this difficult economic moment for the integrity of the Brandeis experience, when no word was heard about this during the stock market boom, is at best disingenuous. The proposal came up now because the University is forced to look everywhere for more money.

Times are honestly tough not only at Brandeis, but in lower and middle class homes across this country, where the struggle to save for college, a traditional form of upward mobility, has never been easy. I remember my parents in affluent Lexington, Mass. being genuinely frightened by the prospect, way back when college cost a fraction of what it does today. Everyone knows that college tuition is real money.

To insist on a full eight semesters of residency would have been outrageous. But, the proposal was the next closest thing. I made a motion to amend the proposal from seven semesters to six, reducing the net increase from 75 percent to a mere 50 percent. A smaller increase would have shown a greater understanding of motivated students and concerned parents for whom paying for a college education is a financial challenge. My motion to amend failed by more than a two-to-one margin.

Deferring to my colleagues, I did not then move to amend the proposal to include the words, "because we need the money." Everyone had to know it was true. But, I believe the institution could have shown more consideration for the constituency that sustains it. I wish we faculty, many from the '60s generation that rejected the materialism of their parents (while, yes, often being supported by mummy and daddy's credit cards), could have -- back then -- seen ourselves as we are now.

Maybe the faculty will consider moderating this unwise decision. Maybe we will back off if economic times get better. I hope so. In the meantime, I can only offer a solution (9567 + 1085 = 10652) to the cryptanalytic puzzle (SEND + MORE = MONEY) that also codes the essential meaning of this unfortunate university decision -- whose genesis is economic and not educational, and whose exodus would provide some freedom for the many who fear the financial burden of the cost of college.

-- Harry Mairson is Professor of Computer Science and a member of the Volen Center for Complex Numbers.